>incomplete/ inaccurate/ deceptive alt text is just as bad as none at all

I beg to differ, in many cases even poor quality alt text is preferable for
AT users as it may provide some information about the image.

>but rather that the hysteria is unfounded.

what behaviour has been demonstrated by anyone that could be described as
"hysteria"?

On 30/08/2007, Karl Groves < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>
> I really don't think it matters whether the alt attribute is required or
> not. Truth is, incomplete/ inaccurate/ deceptive alt text is just as bad
> as
> none at all. It seems as though some people believe that requiring it
> will
> somehow mean people will use it (and use it effectively). That's not the
> case at all! As Tim Beadle (I think) said, there's a lot of really BAD alt
> text out there and the alt attribute is required now. Clearly, requiring
> it
> hasn't meant a thing to people who either don't care or don't know about
> supplying good alt text.
>
> None of this means that I agree with making it optional, but rather that
> the
> hysteria is unfounded. Requiring it for validity's sake doesn't mean that,
> by proxy, websites suddenly become more accessible.
>
> Karl
>
>